tv [untitled] February 20, 2011 4:30am-5:00am PST
long history of supporting income support programs that help people to be able to afford food and other basic necessities. we are strongly against the eviction of hanc and this other proposal that has been floating around to replace cash benefits with food vouchers for recycling. i would like to point out that we have been against reduction to these programs and we are also trying to work hard to make it so that more people in the state of california can participate in the food stamp program. when we talk about ideas like what is going hanc in getting rid of the recycling center, these issues take our eyes off the real problem. one job opening for every five job-seekers nationwide. and under-funded safety net with
79,000 san franciscans eligible for food stamps yet only 37% of those people are enrolled. we need all san francisco to recycle. people that redeem them for cash as well as those that do not are just important as recyclers. we should not be discouraging people from doing anything that helps people to feed their families and pay their rent. i do have a copy of the state legislative agenda [tone] that explains some ways to end hunger. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> my name is richard ivanhoe. i am the current president hanc -- president of hanc and i am speaking in support of keeping the center at its current location.
maintaining the recycling center, contributing somewhere between 1,000,001.5 million to the local economy each year, the proposed community garden is going to cost the city $250,000. a large portion of which is going to architectural design. rec and park put up a sign saying that there's a waiting list of 700 for community gardens. but there was only a waiting list of four at white springs, the closest community garden to the hanc recycling center. as far as the buyback machine, $1,600 per month comes up to $19,000 per year * 27, $518,000, it is not clear if the city or
the merchants of the ones that have to pay for that. there were a couple of comments about 1992 and 1995 actions. the golden gate master plan was finalized well after those years. so, thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. there was one more card. ellen epstein. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i served as a stakeholder of the san francisco food policy council representing the urban agriculture sector. thank you for your time. i support the continuation that the existing site and the relocation of the proposed community garden. by had applauded the allocation
of one quarter of a million dollars for the encouragement of leadership to examine the deep contradictions within the displacement of hanc for community gardens. today i share the street -- the same statement and ask how it can exist without the displacement of the center pepper hanc -- of the center that hanc manages. over the years it has supported grant funding for community gardens and material resources for new gardens for the environment over the last six years. last year at the request of the mayor, policy departments and agencies were asked to conduct surveys reviews of serviceable lands. neighboring locations appeared
on the audit and from a technical standpoint, the mclaren what site is enormously more appropriate for a community garden over 780 frederick street. what i support more is the transparent process by which these decisions are made, especially when results have needlessly pitted community members against each other who otherwise you night to support environmental causes. i would urge you to continue the process started today that is transparent inclusive. [tone] supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. i have been a resident of haight since 1985. i support the rec and park decision to relocate hanc and
and of those that came, who are our neighbors, 20% had asian surnames. these are people that recycle for good reasons. i would like to thank rec and park to be able to except the native plant nursery as a donation. it was very generous of hanc to take this from us as a new type of privatization. i would like to finally point out the golden gate park has 1,000 acres in it. many of them have sunshine. you do need sunshine to grow crops. not nearly so much for native plants. thank you, supervisors. please help us help the neighbors keep this valuable resource. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. next speaker, please.
>> i have been using the hanc recycling center for decades. since the recent environmental action center, as referred to earlier, was opened. i support community recycling and i do use the center because i do not wish to use my blue band. i would rather donate the materials to the organization for all of the good that they do. many of those uses were referred to earlier by others, i will not reiterate them out. the idea of a machine for bottles and cans is absurd to me, as other people pointed out. those are not the material steps the state -- those are not just the only materials that the center takes.
items that other people can take back our very important. as a professional gardener, and must reiterate that this is a bad site for a community garden. the conversion process alone is one thing, but the side has for sunlight coming in, there are tree issues -- it is a very poor site and i am sure that there are much preferred sites. i guess that is the primary thing i would like to mention. supervisor mirkarimi: after this speaker, we will close public comment unless someone absolutely needs to make a comment. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is dennis [unintelligible] and i want to extend
congratulations to you all for the kinds of questioning and in- depth discussion that took place today. i want to challenge the idea that there is a list of these organizations that addressed their members and got a vote in opposition to the placement of ashbury -- hanc. hanc is a historic entity. no one was objecting that was a 40 niner vip parking lot. or when we were in process of changing the decayed polytechnic high school site into affordable housing. some of the people on that list were screaming in opposition because it would bring -- riffraff into the neighborhood. the reason for the debate on
inner sunset with so many groups on the list, they were urging people to come down here to urge the commission to move hanc out in favor of the community gardens. the primary issue was the presence of homeless people and how we could get rid of them. as expressed openly on their discussions sites. we need to understand that that kind of stuff is easy to say. like saying that many organizations are opposed to the recycling center. but underlying that is the stuff about the kinds of people that it attracts, just like the opposition to the park, and that transformed the neighborhood, opposed by the same people that testified today as bringing in riffraff to the community. thank you.
[tone] supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. last speaker. >> walter paulson. ♪ make the waste go away and get it off the shoulders of the city but we all said the things that we needed to say. please make the waste go away and held the plants today make the waste go away and get it off our cities shoulders. turned into something else and you will be glad that you sold her make the waste go away and helped the plants to recycle today and make a better say the things we had to say and make the plants stay ♪
supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. i will now officially close public comment. i would like to give the courtesy to rec and park for a quick one minute response, if they would like. i know that the time does not reflect greater responses you might like to give. i do none of your microphone is on. >> thank you, a supervisor. i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor mirkarimi: one quick question -- i was going to let to make a statement, but one quick question than -- since one of the central tenets is of the nonconforming use that came out abundantly in public comment about the hanc republic -- recycling center, one of the proposed recycling plant and
that it regarded non-conforming use? >> the proposed water treatment plant, but i understand the argument and there are conforming reasons for the plant as a part of the proposal. we have not -- the water treatment plant is a program that was initiated by the puc and is presently being worked through in alternatives. supervisor mirkarimi: just because this is important to the question -- those people that say that they very much support hanc but not at that location, what efforts are being done to demonstrate that support for possible relocation? >> they have exhausted numerous vacation publications.
supervisor mirkarimi: what about the hanc recycling center? >> sorry? >> if it does coincide with thinking that maybe the water treatment plant is not of consistent use to golden gate park and that there are actions to be taken as considered alternative uses outside the park, with that now go to a continuity of building hanc on a new location? i have no record of that. >> supervisors, when we began this process of repurchasing for the state, we headpin conversations with almost all city departments about the possibility of city land being available. the department of the environment led those conversations. there is no park land in the convenience zone that would be a
suitable location for relocation. as i recall, a city-owned properties that it makes sense, it did not mean that there were not existing properties outside of that zone. as a possible place to relocate hanc. supervisor mirkarimi: department of environment is welcome to speak on this quickly. >> sarah is right. we did look to see if there were city lands inappropriate to relocate hanc. no possibilities were drawn up, but there may be some with private lands yet to be explored. we have not initiated the search yet. supervisor mirkarimi: with presentations made it would seem that there would be consistency for the actions to support that and we have not seen support of that action to the fulcrum that we have seen the alternative to in trying to potentially
relocate the water treatment plant. i wanted to line up that thinking. >> a reasonable point. pedroiapu -- puc has been working closely with the department of the environment in supporting their efforts for alternative locations for hanc. supervisor mirkarimi: if i might -- one, too. let's the level of interest in -- >> the level of interest seen on possible relocation, we will continue in that effort. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you to the departments. we appreciate it. i am sure that we will follow up. i just wanted to sum up in this regard. many people believe that it is a fait accompli that the
determination of the eviction of hanc recycling will occur, and they are quite right. the board of supervisors is not enabled to overturn a decision by the rec and park decision. as i said in the opening, there had been no spotlight on the hearing of the process of unveiling in consensus on the larger issue for many on all sides to stipulate public comment and it was important to get out in the open. i think it is important to many of us were neighbors to the recycling center, that we look at this issue. as much as i appreciate the intentions they are trying to reconcile with the mayor's office, perceived or real in their mind, the recycling center
being a contributor to any kind of neighborhood distress, it doesn't excuse what it means to have a loss of the recycling center. i have to say that the answers the presentation has given do not complete the feelings that that loss has been satisfied or well compensated. i do have a hard time understanding that if we lose the recycling center, to supplant that -- as it is the equivalent of that major contribution -- crv machines, thinking that there will be a line of people at stores selling it -- simile submitting into those machines, it has not been well thought out -- singly
submitting it to those machines, it has not been well thought out. it should when you have somebody who is contributing money back into both city and community, whether they like with a day are contributing money on not, it calls into question when you have, like, the botanical garden where we pay them in a sense to continue operating an area that does cost us in a way that i do not think white wines of in a manner that we have a relationship with hanc, and it would only make more sense to us if -- that this be thought through that much more by at least a more sincere effort that the administration wants hanc to be relocated, that they support and prove that they are working as diligently as they are with other actions like water
treatment center or however it is to relocate them, but that has not happened at all. maybe this will result in something with greater sort of change ability, and i think that there has been enough evidence here to help support some next steps potentially, but that kind -- that is kind of the junction we are at. we appreciate everything that rec and park is trying to navigate around its budget deficits, etc., as well as department of environment and thinking forward about its recycling goals, but some of it does not pan out in its justification for removing the recycling center, and if there is a better plan to do so, then that plan needs to be presented. i am more than happy to continue to keep an open mind on this and have any discussions with city departments and the mayor's office, as it stands, about the evolution of this idea, and thank you, colleagues, for your indulgence, for this first time hearing.
supervisor mar: i just wanted to thank supervisor mirkarimi for calling this hearing, but especially the many residents and supporters of the environment and haight ashbury neighborhood center, hanc recycling center, and so much history of that has been brought in four hours we have been here. helps us understand how much work has been done within the rec and park department and the department of the environment as well. i wanted to thank our general manager never won for being here. especially the new department of the environment head. thank you so much for the great presentations, and i guess, mr. yee as well. i've been using the recycling center for over 20 years. like many people, i see the human element that has been mentioned in the commons, and i think wayne wiley, one of the 10 employees, his comments about how the recycling center does not just recycle materials, but
it is about recycling people, and the 10 green jobs that have been developed over the years and $1.5 million that has brought back to the city in supporting our economy is something that is really important, of couple of richmond district residents that in buyer -- acknowledged and the emergence of recycling center movements in the city are really neighborhood-based, and this is a shining example, a nationwide example, as someone said, that shines nationally as one of the key community-based recycling centers. i would like to see the rec and park department find another location for the community gardens. because i strongly support community gardens. but i know there is again many acres within the golden gate park area, including the mcclaren large, that hopefully you could look at more carefully. and you could look at the representatives to talk about the process that went through, but i really think it needs to be a more transparent process,
as many people have run up, before a land use decisions are made. lastly, i just wanted to sum up by saying a couple of the speakers also acknowledged the importance of hanc as an community growing place, and i guess it was again wayne talking about his family and children and learning cantonese and spanish and for talking with many of the richmond district recyclers that always come back to the recycling center, it is a multi-cultural place that really is valuable for the city, so i look forward to working with you to insure that we do not ebit the haight ashbury recycling center -- we do not evict the haight ashbury recycling center. thank you to everyone for being here, and i really appreciate the education as well. thank you. [applause]
supervisor avalos: thank you. i want to thank you for this hearing on this subject, and i thank all the members of the community for coming out and voicing your concerns. supervisor, would you like this to be -- supervisor mirkarimi: continue to the call of the chair. supervisor avalos: without objection, continue to the call of the chair, and we will recess this meeting unt 7:09 supervisor avalos: love as in the air. my name is supervisor john avalos, chair of the city operations and neighborhoods services committee.
supervisor david campos is with us, and he has sponsored today's resolution and hearing. please call item 3. >> item 3, a resolution urging the san francisco municipal transportation agency to adopt changes to the youth lifeline discount fastpass program for qualified low-income youth. supervisor avalos: 90. supervisor campos will get to run this part of the meeting. -- thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. happy valentine's day. i think it is only appropriate that we are holding this hearing on valentine's day, and i wanted thank the members of the committee who have come out to this hearing. i see at least one member of the board of education. we have all been impacted by the tough economy, and as we know
here in san francisco, as of november last year, the unemployment rate was 9.6%. this economic downturn has been especially difficult on low- income children. the number of public servants qualifying for free and reduced lunch has actually increased from 54% in 2008, 2009 to 61% in the 2010-2011 school year. just to put some perspective on those numbers, to qualify for free and reduced lunch, a student has to live in a household with income below 130% of the poverty line. that means that to qualify, you have, for a family of four, you're talking about income of $28,665 a year. you can imagine how difficult it would be for that family to survive here in san francisco. in may last year, the mta
increase the price of the muni fastpass by 100% from $10 to $20, and even though that may not seem like a large amount for some families coming you can see how for some families, especially a low-income family, that would be a significant increase, and that increase was made without any special consideration made for low- income children that could not afford the increased air. was in recognition of those challenges that supervisor mirkarimi interest in resolution urging the sfmta to create a discounted fast fast for low- income youth. that resolution, i've had to say, passed unanimously, and the board of directors approved the creation of that program. to that end, they dedicated $1.4 million of the mta budget to the youth lifeline